Bret Stephens Anonymouse

Saturday's Times column by Bret Stephens, about President Trump, the FBI, and Russia, carries this passage:

On Friday, I asked an astute source with long experience in the intelligence community if he suspects a smoking gun.

"I would guess there is something on paper or derived through witness questioning that has given the bureau an opening, assuming that Trump's actions are in response to growing concern about the Russian probe," he replied, while adding the caveat, "Since we're talking about Trump, a rampantly insecure ego, such an assumption isn't mandatory."

They wrote: "Material from anonymous sources should be 'information,' not just spin or speculation." They went on, "Sources who demand anonymity give up the opportunity to have their speculation or interpretation reflected in our stories, and such quotes will no longer be allowed except in the rare instances when the direct quote is pivotal to a story."

What is a "guess," if not speculation?

Mr. Stephens doesn't say whether this "astute source" is still serving in the intelligence community, and if so whether it is an American intelligence source or one from some other country. He doesn't say why the source needed anonymity, that is, why he was afraid or unwilling to have his name attached to the characterization of Trump. He also doesn't say on what basis the intelligence source assesses that Trump has "a rampantly insecure ego."

If I had to guess myself — not anonymously — I'd say that Mr. Stephens' source is James Woolsey, a former director of Central Intelligence. Mr. Stephens praised Woolsey on Twitter back in January as "one of the most talented and intelligent people around," which is a longer way of saying "astute." And Mr. Woolsey has been giving on-the-record interviews critical of Trump's firing of Comey.

Maybe the Times op-ed page has different standards than the news section when it comes to anonymous sources. If so, Times readers deserve to know what they are, in a transparent, public way, in the same way that the news section has made its guidelines public. If the op-ed page has lower standards than the news department does on anonymous sources, it'd be interesting to hear why. The news department standards refer to the need "to protect our precious credibility." Is credibility considered less precious at the Times op-ed page?

receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free smartertimes.com mailing list